TALLAHASSEE – Due to COVID-19, most face-to-face legal proceedings in the state courts will be suspended for a minimum of two weeks under a statewide order issued Friday by Florida Chief Justice Charles Canady. The order takes effect Monday.
Instead, Canady authorized local judges to use remote electronic means of conducting legal proceedings whenever possible. The order will be extended or modified as needed in the future and is subject to existing constitutional requirements.
This is the first time a limit on face-to-face proceedings has been ordered since Florida’s state courts system was unified by a constitutional amendment approved by state voters in 1972.
The following A.O. is drawing some serious criticism behind the scenes.
A few observations and concerns:
Will it result in racial profiling?
Instead of an outright ban, why isn’t there an alternative remote system or location in place for access to courts?
Has this already been done anywhere else in the United States during the ongoing crisis, or in the past concerning other outbreaks?
If concerns are high, why not close the courts completely as Broward is cruise ship central and home to a large elderly population, if in-custody defendants can be addressed remotely for release purposes?
If closure is not appropriate, and if trials requiring jurors haven’t already been suspended, why not?
“I try to work closely with county government. Ultimately the statutes give me the power to close a courthouse but we rarely do that unless we’ve talked to all of our stakeholders who work in this building,” (Jack) Tuter said. “I think people should continue to operate in the courthouse the way we’ve done in the past. If we do think there is some kind of emergency, we’re going to let everybody know. We’re going to be as transparent as we can. But until then, everyone should just conduct business as usual.”
(Disclaimer/Unsolicited Mass Communications – anyone subscribed to JAABLOG not wishing to receive blogs regarding Bill Gelin’s candidacy for BOG Seat 17/1 of the Florida Bar should immediately UNSUBSCRIBE to JAABLOG)
But the complaint, which was received by the Bar in October, 2018, has yet to be noticed as having been submitted to a Grievance Committee (GC). Similarly, the Motion To Quash Subpoena regarding the Bar’s fishing expedition for IP Addresses they have no legal right to, filed with bar prosecutor Frances Brown-Lewis on May 6, 2019, has yet to be noticed as addressed by the Bar through either a GC or a judge in open court. The Bar, of course, is the only entity that can forward it for public hearing, something pro bono warriorJohn Howes has been asking for for the longest time.
By comparison, nasty-tweeting, gas mask wearing Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, whose district is just a couple of hours from the Bar’s home base in Republican controlled Tallahassee, had his free speech bar complaint sent to a GC a mere 68 days after the file was opened, and it was dismissed with a finding of no probable cause after a grand total of 170 days.
Jay Spechler’sJAABLOG based complaint was opened on August 23, 2018, sent to a GC 191 days later, with the Bar approved consent judgement sent for Supreme Court approval roughly 501 days from the opening of the file.
As of today, Brenda v. Blog is 497 days old, with zero notice of any GC action!
Accordingly, the following PRR was sent to the Bar today, out of concerns the Bar is playing politics:
Is the Florida Bar specifically aiding and abetting Brenda Forman’s reelection campaign, or wishing not to impact said campaign pro or con, by not pursuing the JAABLOG case in normal course due to the fact it is a case of public interest, and will be litigated in open court with continued media coverage that will likely continue to put Forman in a bad light?
Is there any reason why the Motion to Quash Subpoena has not been addressed in open court? Is the Bar going to sit on all pending matters until after the August election for Brenda Forman?
As you may be aware, the Forman/JAABLOG matters are today once again on the front page of the Sun Sentinel, and there are serious concerns the Bar, given the complaint is roughly seventeen months old and apparently not before a grievance committee or certainly a judge in open court, is purposely putting this off to not cause further adverse publicity for the complainant, who is seeking reelection.
The Bar declined comment, citing confidentiality rules found in section 3-7.1, which is why we’re asking for YOU TO MAKE THE CALL!
Is the Bar playing politics by sitting on Brenda v. Blog to preclude further negative media coverage for Brenda’s reelection campaign?
Should there be a speedy trial option in Bar matters?
Or is the Bar simply saving face by not acting given the strength of John Howes’ tutorial on first amendment law, and the Bar’s own precedents relating to JAABLOG?
YOU MAKE THE CALL!
COMING SOON – Who was/is Brenda Jenkins?; Bill Scherer and Marni Bryson set for depo …
In the meantime, campaign emails are going out from myself and my opponent, Jay Kim.
By far the most humorous response I’ve personally received to date is pictured below. It’s from none other than Merrilee Ehrlich, who is understandably no fan of the blog that hastened her retirement:
Interestingly, Jay Kim’s most recent email advert arrived today with the subject header Survey: Members of The Florida Bar give it the highest rating ever, and the following claim:
My efforts have helped The Florida Bar achieve its all-time highest rating from its members who participated in the 2019 Florida Bar Membership Opinion Survey. An overwhelming 82 percent of Bar members have rated The Florida Bar as an “excellent” or “good” advocate for the legal profession, the highest rating ever received for this question.
(emphasis added)
That threw me off guard, since so many members have been offering up their particular Bar horror stories to me since voting started, in addition to the usual complaints. Accordingly, I sent a public records request to TFB to see what the survey’s methodology was, and was informed thusly:
In December 2019, The Florida Bar sent an online survey link to a random sample of 3,850in-state and out-of-state, eligible members. By the cut-off date of December 23, 2019, the Bar had received 1,022 completed questionnaires,for a response rate of 27%. This response rate is quite acceptable for this type of lengthy online survey. Although 1,022 questionnaires were returned, not all questions were answered by all respondents. Therefore, some percentages are based upon the actual number of individuals who responded to that particular question.
(emphasis added)
TFB and Jay obviously believe this methodology is sound, even with a 27% partial participation rate of a small random sample, when there were 93,061 eligible members at the time of the survey. I personally think it’s junk science, especially given the fact so many people I know are furious with the Bar, or at least apathetic, and would never bother to vote in elections, let alone fill out a survey.
What do you think? Are you happy with the Bar’s disciplinary arm practices? Are you happy with the current judicial appointment process? Do you think the Bar is doing enough to combat institutional racism and the lack of diversity on the bench? Do you think Florida’s legal system is esteemed and respected by the general public? And even if some members think the Bar is doing a “good” job, shouldn’t we be doing better?
Please review my positions here, and click this link to get your PIN and vote. Abstaining means more of the same, as my opponent enjoys institutional support, which cannot be overcome if there isn’t high voter turnout. Lastly, if you don’t like things shaken up, then please support my opponent. But whatever you do, please vote!
Bill Gelin
(Disclaimer/Unsolicited Mass Communications – anyone subscribed to JAABLOG not wishing to receive blogs regarding Bill Gelin’s candidacy for BOG Seat 17/1 of the Florida Bar should immediately UNSUBSCRIBE to JAABLOG)
